Turner v. State of New York
| Decision Date | 08 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 399,399 |
| Parties | William TURNER et al., Petitioners, v. STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Osmond K. Fraenkel, New York City, for petitioners.
H. Richard Uviller, New York City, for respondent.
The writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.
This case arose out of an assembly in Duffy Square, New York City, protesting American policy in Vietnam. After a few minutes of speeches, the police dispersed the crowd, utilizing two policemen on horseback and a dozen patrolmen.
The complaint charged disorderly conduct,
'in that with intent to provoke a breach of the peace and under circumstances whereby a breach of the peace might be occasioned, the defendants did unlawfully congregate and assemble at the above location obstructing the area to the exclusion of those wishing to use same, and did delay vehicular traffic while carrying placards and using loud and boisterous language; by their actions did cause a crowd to collect; (w)hen ordered to move on the defendants did fail to do so, after being informed that their actions were not lawful.'
The evidence showed that the meeting was peaceful and orderly until the horses arrived. Up to that time the crowd was apparently small with no one paying much attention. The bulk of the evidence at the trial related to acts of individual petitioners during the period when the police were trying to disperse the crowd, that is, between the advent of the horses and the arrests. After the appearance by the police, there was a minor disturbance, one person hitting a horse with a rolled-up cardboard placard, one biting a policeman, and one lying down. But these acts were not charged in the complaint. While no opinion was written by the trial court, the Appellate Term did write and in its opinion relied heavily on these post-dispersion facts to justify the convictions. 48 Misc.2d 611, 613—618, 619, 265 N.Y.S.2d 841, 843 847, 849. But as stated by Judge Hofstadter in dissent:
48 Misc.2d, at 630, 265 N.Y.S.2d, at 860.
A conviction on one ground may not be sustained on grounds that might have been charged but were not. 'It is as much...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shannon v. State
...47 A.3d 1002 (citing Dunn v. United States , 442 U.S. 100, 107, 99 S. Ct. 2190, 60 L.Ed.2d 743 (1979) ; Turner v. New York , 386 U.S. 773, 775, 87 S. Ct. 1417, 18 L.Ed.2d 522 (1967) ; Landaker v. State , 327 Md. 138, 140, 607 A.2d 1253 (1992) ).Implementing these protections, the Maryland R......
-
Amato v. Ruth
... ... , Wisconsin, moves to dismiss the action against him on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action on which relief can be granted ... Amato's constitutional ... Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 86 S.Ct. 958, 16 L.Ed.2d 56 (1966); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct ... ...
-
Johnson v. State
...due process to send an accused to prison following conviction ... upon a charge that was never made.”); Turner v. New York, 386 U.S. 773, 775, 87 S.Ct. 1417, 1418, 18 L.Ed.2d 522 (1967) (“[A] conviction upon a charge not made is not consistent with due process.” (citations and quotation mar......
-
Shannon v. State
...(1937)); accord Johnson, 427 Md. at 376 (citing Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 107, 99 S. Ct. 2190 (1979); Turner v. New York, 386 U.S. 773, 775, 87 S. Ct. 1417 (1967); Landaker v. State, 327 Md. 138, 140 (1992)). Implementing these protections, the Maryland Rules provide that "[a]n o......